Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Julie Walsh, Whitehead Associate Professor of Critical Thought and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Wellesley College

Between 1400 and 1780, an estimated 100,000 people, mostly women, were prosecuted for witchcraft in Europe. About half that number were executed – killings motivated by a constellation of beliefs about women, truth, evil and magic.

But the witch hunts could not have had the reach they did without the media machinery that made them possible: an industry of printed manuals that taught readers how to find and exterminate witches.

I regularly teach a class on philosophy and witchcraft, where we discuss the religious, social, economic and philosophical contexts of early modern witch hunts in Europe and colonial America. I also teach and research the ethics of digital technologies.

These fields aren’t as different as they seem. The parallels between the spread of false information in the witch-hunting era and in today’s online information ecosystem are striking – and instructive.

Birth of a publishing empire

The printing press, invented around 1440, revolutionized how information spread – helping to create the era’s equivalent of a viral conspiracy theory.

By 1486, two Dominican friars had published the “Malleus Maleficarum,” or “Hammer of Witches.” The book has three central claims that came to dominate the witch hunts.

First, it describes women as morally weak and therefore more likely to be witches. Second, it tightly links witchcraft with sexuality. The authors claim that women are sexually insatiable – part of what leads them to witchcraft. Third, witchcraft involves a pact with the devil, who tempts would-be witches through pleasures such as orgies and sexual favors. After establishing these “facts,” the authors conclude with instructions for interrogating, torturing and punishing witches.

The book was a hit. It had more than two dozen editions and was translated into multiple languages. While “Malleus Maleficarum” was not the only text of its kind, its influence was enormous.

Prior to 1500, witch hunts in Europe were rare. But after the “Malleus Maleficarum,” they picked up steam. Indeed, new printings of the book correlate with surges in witch-hunting in Central Europe. The book’s success wasn’t just about content; it was about credibility. Pope Innocent VIII had recently affirmed the existence of witches and conferred authority on inquisitors to persecute them, giving the book further authority.

Ideas about witches [from earlier texts and folklore] – such as the fact that witches could use spells to make penises vanish – were recycled and repackaged in the “Malleus Maleficarum,” which in turn served as a “source” for future works. It was often quoted in later manuals and woven into civic law.

The popularity and influence of the book helped crystallize a new domain of expertise: demonologist, an expert on the nefarious activities of witches. As demonologists repeated one another’s spurious claims, an echo chamber of “evidence” was born. The identity of the witch was thus formalized: dangerous and decisively female.

Skeptics fight back

Not everyone bought into the witch hysteria. As early as 1563, dissenting voices emerged – though, notably, most didn’t argue that witches weren’t real. Instead, they questioned the methods used to identify and prosecute them.

Dutch physician Johann Weyer argued that women accused of witchcraft were suffering from melancholia – what we might now call mental illness – and needed medical treatment, not execution. In 1580, French philosopher Michel de Montaigne visited imprisoned witches and concluded they needed “hellebore rather than hemlock”: medicine rather than poison.

These skeptics also identified something more insidious: the moral responsibility of people spreading the stories. In 1677, English chaplain, physician and philosopher John Webster wrote a scathing critique, claiming that most demonologists’ texts were straightforward copy and paste jobs where the authors repeated one another’s lies. The demonologists offered no original analysis, no evidence and no witnesses – failing to meet the standards of good scholarship.

The cost of this failure was enormous. As Montaigne wrote, “The witches of my neighborhood are in mortal danger every time some new author comes along and attests to the reality of their visions.”

Demonologists benefited from the social and political status associated with the popularity of their books. The financial benefit was, for the most part, enjoyed by the printers and booksellers – what today we refer to as publishers.

Witch hunts petered out throughout the 1700s across Europe. Doubt about the standards of evidence, and increased awareness that accused “witches” may have been suffering from delusion, were factors in the end of the persecution. The skeptics’ voices were heard.

Psychology of viral lies

Early modern skeptics understood something we’re still grappling with today: Certain people are more vulnerable to believing extraordinary claims. They identified “melancholics,” people predisposed to anxiety and fantastical thinking, as particularly susceptible.

Nicolas Malebranche, a 17th-century French philosopher, believed that our imaginations have enormous power to convince us of things that are not true – especially fear of invisible, malevolent forces. He noted that “extravagant tales of witchcraft are taken as authentic histories,” increasing people’s credulity. The more stories, and the more they were told, the greater the influence on the imagination. The repetition served as false confirmation.

“If they were to cease punishing (women accused of witchcraft) and treat them as mad people,” Malebranche wrote, “in a little while they would no longer be sorcerers.”

Today’s researchers have identified similar patterns in how misinformation and disinformation – false information intended to confuse or manipulate people – spreads online. We’re more likely to believe stories that feel familiar, stories that connect to content we’ve previously seen. Likes, shares and retweets becomes proxies for truth. Emotional content designed to shock or outrage spreads far and fast.

Social media channels are particularly fertile ground. Companies’ algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, so a post that receives likes, shares and comments will be shown to more people. The more viewers, the higher the likelihood of more engagement, and so on – creating a cycle of confirmation bias.

Speed of a keystroke

Early modern skeptics reserved their harshest criticism not for those who believed in witches but for those who spread the stories. Yet they were curiously silent on the ultimate arbiters and financial beneficiaries of what got printed and circulated: the publishers.

Today, 54% of American adults get at least some news from social media platforms. These platforms, like the printing presses of old, don’t just distribute information. They shape what we believe through algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy: The more a story is repeated, the more priority it gets.

The witch hunts offer a sobering reminder that delusion and misinformation are recurring features of human society, especially during times of technological change and social upheaval. As we navigate our own information revolution, those early skeptics’ questions remain urgent: Who bears responsibility when false information leads to real harm? How do we protect the most vulnerable from exploitation by those who profit from confusion and fear?

In an age when anyone can be a publisher, and extravagant tales spread at the speed of a keystroke, understanding how previous societies dealt with similar challenges isn’t just academic – it’s essential.

Julie Walsh receives funding from the National Science Foundation

– ref. From printing presses to Facebook feeds: What yesterday’s witch hunts have in common with today’s misinformation crisis – https://theconversation.com/from-printing-presses-to-facebook-feeds-what-yesterdays-witch-hunts-have-in-common-with-todays-misinformation-crisis-260995

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jialing Lin, Research fellow in Health Systems, International Centre for Future Health Systems, UNSW Sydney

Vaccination against shingles increased among adults age 50 and older in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic, but not equally across all population groups. That’s the key finding from a new study my colleagues and I published in the journal Vaccine.

Shingles is caused by the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus, the same virus that causes chickenpox. It leads to a painful rash and potentially serious complications – especially in older adults – such as persistent nerve pain, vision loss and neurological problems. While antiviral treatments can ease symptoms, vaccination is the most effective way to prevent shingles.

We analyzed nationally representative survey data from almost 80,000 adults age 50 and over between 2018 and 2022, collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor the health of the U.S. population. The survey tracked vaccination rates in people of different ethnic backgrounds as well as other factors such as sex, household income and the presence of chronic conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The uptake of shingles vaccines rose notably during the pandemic – from 25.1% of people for whom it is recommended in 2018-2019, to 30.1% during 2020-2022. We observed this overall increase across nearly all groups in our study.

We saw the greatest relative increases among groups that historically have had lower rates of shingles vaccination. These included adults ages 50-64, men, people from racial and ethnic minority groups such as non-Hispanic Black adults, those with lower household incomes, current smokers and people without chronic conditions like cancer or arthritis.

Why it matters

In the U.S., the CDC recommends shingles vaccination for all adults age 50 and older. However, uptake has been low, partly due to limited awareness, cost concerns and missed opportunities during routine health care visits.

The COVID-19 pandemic, while disruptive, may have inadvertently created new opportunities to improve adult vaccination uptake, particularly among groups with historically low uptake of the shingles vaccine. Factors contributing to this shift likely included heightened public awareness of the importance of vaccination, more frequent health care encounters, especially during COVID-19 vaccine rollouts, and the expanded availability of adult vaccines in pharmacies and primary care settings.

Replacing the older, less effective live attenuated zoster vaccine, called Zostavax, with the newer, non-live zoster vaccine, Shingrix, in 2020 also played a role. Public health campaigns that promoted co-administration of vaccines and launched targeted outreach to underserved populations further contributed to these gains.

However, major inequities persist. While shingles vaccination rates improved across the board, groups that had lower uptake before the pandemic continued to lag behind wealthier, non-Hispanic white populations with greater health care access. Overall, the vaccination rate for shingles is still low – below other vaccines such as the flu vaccine.

This gap reflects long-standing disparities in getting needed health care, which became even more prominent during the pandemic. It also highlights the need for fairer policies and customized outreach efforts to underserved communities that build trust and raise awareness about the health benefits of the shingles vaccine.

What still isn’t known

Although the upward trend we observed is encouraging, several questions remain. For example, we could not tell from the survey data we worked with whether participants received both doses of the Shingrix vaccine. Both are needed for full protection against shingles.

Nor could we tell whether participants received the shingles vaccine alongside their COVID-19 vaccination. Receiving multiple vaccines at a single health care visit makes vaccination more convenient and may boost vaccine uptake by reducing the number of needed visits. Also unknown is how immunocompromised people fared during this period. Current guidelines recommend that immunocompromised adults regardless of age also receive the shingles vaccine, but the data only included adults age 50 and over.

Addressing these questions in future studies would help public health experts develop strategies to encourage more eligible people to receive the shingles vaccine.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Jialing Lin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Shingles vaccination rates rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, but major gaps remain for underserved groups – https://theconversation.com/shingles-vaccination-rates-rose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-but-major-gaps-remain-for-underserved-groups-262020

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By William Cornwell, Associate Professor of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

On July 24, 2025, the American pro wrestling celebrity Hulk Hogan, whose real name was Terry Bollea, died at the age of 71. Hogan had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and a history of atrial fibrillation, or A-fib, a condition in which the upper chambers of the heart, or atria, beat irregularly and often rapidly. His cause of death has been confirmed as acute myocardial infarction, commonly known as a heart attack.

Hogan became a household name in the 1980s and has long been known for maintaining fitness and a highly active lifestyle, despite having had 25 surgeries in 10 years, including a neck surgery in May.

Hogan’s death has brought renewed attention to the importance of maintaining heart health through exercise. Many people think that bodybuilders are the “picture” of health. However, the truth is that too much muscle can increase strain on the heart and may actually be harmful. It may seem ironic, then, that people who exercise to extreme levels and appear healthy on the outside can, in fact, be quite unhealthy on the inside.

As the director of sports cardiology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, I see patients of all age groups and at varying levels of fitness who are interested in promoting health by incorporating exercise into their lifestyle, or by optimizing their current exercise program.

Exercise is the foundation for good health

When people think of vital signs, they usually think about things such as heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, breathing rate and blood oxygen levels. However, the American Heart Association also includes “fitness” as an additional vital sign that should be considered when determining a patient’s overall health and risk of heart disease, cancer and death.

While fitness may be determined in various ways, the best way is by checking what is known as peak oxygen uptake, or VO2 max, through a specialized evaluation called a cardiopulmonary exercise test. These can be performed at many doctors’ offices and clinics, and they provide a wealth of information related to overall health, as well as heart, lung and skeletal muscle function.

Exercise is one of the most effective interventions to prolong life and reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases throughout life – in effect, prolonging lifespan and improving health span, meaning the number of years that people spend in good health.

In fact, a large study done by the Cleveland Clinic found that a low level of fitness poses a greater risk of death over time than other traditional risk factors that people commonly think of, such as smoking, diabetes, coronary artery disease and severe kidney disease.

When it comes to brain health, the American Stroke Association emphasizes the importance of routine exercise and avoiding sedentary behavior in their 2024 guidelines on primary prevention of stroke. The risk of stroke increases with the amount of sedentary time spent throughout the day and also with the amount of time spent watching television, particularly four hours or more per day.

Regarding cognitive decline, the Alzheimer’s Society states that regular exercise reduces the risk of dementia by almost 20%. Furthermore, the risk of Alzheimer’s disease is twice as high among individuals who exercise the least, when compared to individuals who exercise the most.

There is also strong evidence that regular exercise reduces the risk of certain types of cancer, especially, colon, breast and endometrial cancer. This reduction in cancer risk is achieved through several mechanisms.

For one, obesity is a risk factor for up to 13 forms of cancer, and excess body weight is responsible for about 7% of all cancer deaths. Regular exercise helps to maintain a healthy weight.

Second, exercise helps to keep certain hormones – such as insulin and sex hormones – within a normal range. When these hormone levels get too high, they may increase cancer cell growth. Exercise also helps to boost the immune system by improving the body’s ability to fight off pathogens and cancer cells. This in turn helps prevent cancer cell growth and also reduces chronic inflammation, which left unchecked damages tissue and increases cancer risk.

Finally, exercise improves the quality of life for all people, regardless of their health or their age. In 2023, Hulk Hogan famously quipped, “I’m 69 years old, but I feel like I’m 39.”

The optimal dose of exercise

Major health organizations, such as the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and Department of Health and Human Services, all share similar recommendations when it comes to the amount of exercise people should aim for.

These organizations all recommend doing at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, or at least 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise. Moderate exercises include activities such as walking briskly (2.5 to 4 miles per hour), playing doubles tennis or raking the yard. Vigorous exercise includes activities such as jogging, running or shoveling snow.

A good rule of thumb for figuring out how hard a specific exercise is is to apply the “talk test”: During moderate-intensity exercise, you can talk, but not sing, during the activity. During vigorous intensity exercise, you can say only a few words before having to stop and take a breath.

There is a lot of solid data to support these recommendations. For example, in a very large analysis of about 48,000 people followed for 30 years, the risk of death from any cause was about 20% lower among those who followed the physical activity guidelines for Americans.

Life can be busy, and some people may find it challenging to squeeze in at least 150 minutes of exercise throughout the course of the week. However, “weekend warriors” – people who cram all their exercise into one to two days over the weekend – still receive the benefits of exercise. So, a busy lifestyle during the week should not prevent people from doing their best to meet the guidelines.

What about the number of steps per day? In a new analysis in The Lancet, when compared with walking only 2,000 steps per day, people who walked 7,000 steps per day had a 47% lower risk of death from any cause, a 25% lower risk of developing heart disease, about a 50% lower risk of death from heart disease, a 38% lower risk of developing dementia, a 37% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 22% lower risk of depression and a 28% lower risk of falls.

Historically, people have aimed for 10,000 steps per day, but this new data indicates that there are tremendous benefits gained simply from walking 7,000 steps daily.

It’s never too late to start

One question that many patients ask me – and other doctors – is: “Is it ever too late to start exercising?” There is great data to suggest that people can reap the benefits even if they don’t begin an exercise program into their 50s.

Being sedentary while aging will cause the heart and blood vessels to stiffen. When that happens, blood pressure can go up and people may be at risk of other things such as heart attacks, strokes or heart failure.

However, in a study of previously sedentary adults with an average age of 53, two years of regular exercise reversed the age-related stiffening of the heart that otherwise occurs in the absence of routine exercise.

And it is important to remember that you do not have to look like a body builder or fitness guru in order to reap the benefits of exercise.

Almost three-quarters of the total benefit to heart, brain and metabolic health that can be gained from exercise will be achieved just by following the guidelines.

William Cornwell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As wrestling fans reel from the sudden death of Hulk Hogan, a cardiologist explains how to live long and healthy − and avoid chronic disease – https://theconversation.com/as-wrestling-fans-reel-from-the-sudden-death-of-hulk-hogan-a-cardiologist-explains-how-to-live-long-and-healthy-and-avoid-chronic-disease-262103